_edited.png)
Article By-
Sonam Singh
Amity Law School.
ABSTRACT:
“Protest is a hallmark of modern democracy…….”
The Context of the Indian establishment is organizing by anti-colonial struggle, within which the seeds of a political public sphere and democratic constitution were sown. The people of our country were fought hard and prolonged express their views in a public. In colonial policies and law, India PROTEST has a long history as we all know India was raised by British so for this to freedom from British as our freedom FIGHTERS thought to use the power of PEACEFUL protest that's why in 1905 Mahatma Gandhi had established Swadeshi MOVEMENT type of protest after that in a1919 Khilafat movement and 1930 a salt Satyagrah movement. These all were parts of protest. Protests have also offered points of inclusion & participation to the voices that are not part of the mainstream.
Introduction
The word protest is derived from the French word "protester" which means "declared publicly". The simple meaning of protest is an expression that declined or to do objection to any institute policy schemes launched by the government or an organization. The protest movements that appear in the last two decennary provide evidence that Internet technologies are helping users bypass traditional modes of mobilization. But answering why and the way new media facilitate self-organization and comprehension requires a careful approach to the networks they assist forge, and to both the successes and therefore the failures. The Web and social media have altered the way during which people interact day to day & making formal organizations. Less obligatory and viewers potentially wider but at the core of the method there are still motivated and chains of influence that transcend the technical capabilities of these tools. The Constitution itself addresses the questions of the ambit of the correct to protest as something which is clearly not within the terms as is formed intent on is nowadays. The protest against the farm laws, which led to a personal protester climbing on one in all the flagpoles of the red fort and unfurling a non-secular flag is most under no circumstances something that is protected by the Constitution. Additionally, even the non-violent method of blocking important roads results in major harm to others within the kind of inconvenience in daily commuting, is additionally not protected by the Constitution as liberty, because it evidently results in crumbling of public order and comes at a price of constant harm to several others. Contempt of court is additionally a ground on which freedom of speech and expression is curtailed. As mentioned above, within the absence of this the religion of the people within the judicial organ may falter, which ends up the enclosure of the first method of resolving disagreements. Hence, one particular comedian may joke about the court or the magistrate of India, but it'll not be fair for the standard litigants who believe that the courts act because of the guardian of their fundamental freedoms and approach it in many thousands of numbers, every day.
The Motive for protest is to-
1. Interrogate or increase accountability of government about the scheme or any statute.
2. Protest permits people to right to elevate their view and convey their expression of any state or schemes of a social issue raised by the government.
3. Create peacefulness in a democratic country.
Right to Protest in Indian Constitution-
The word protest is not outlined in the Indian constitution. Despite these articles, 19 (1) (b) and 19 (3) of the Indian constitution is strongly protect the rights of an Indian citizen by freedom of speech and expression. Guarantee all the citizens of India the right to freely express their views and expression[1]. Article 19 1(b) provides the right “to assemble peacefully without arms”. Article 19-1(c) provides the right to freedom and an association; however, these rights are not absolute in nature. Following restrictions are also mentioned-:
• The assembly must be peaceable
• It must be unarmed
• Reasonable restriction can be enacted under clause (3) of an article (19)
Clause (4) of Article 19 empowers the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the right of freedom of association and union in the interest of “public order” or “morality” or “sovereignty” or “integrity” of India. It means if the protest is against the sovereignty of the country its integrity, security as well as if it deforms the relation with other states then the protest can be abolished by the government. The right of assembly is implied in the very idea of the democratic government. The assembly must be non-violent and must not cause any breach of public peace. If the assembly is disordered or riotous then it is not protected under Article 19 (1) (b) & reasonable restrictions may be imposed under clause (3) of Article 19 in the interests of “sovereignty & integrity of India or “public order”.
Why the right to protest important in democracy-
At the time, the right to protest can't be taken away from the citizens because it is the only way to draw the government's attention[2] to an issue or institutes passed by the. As we see the administration enacts many laws, rules policy, schemes for the development growth, and welfare of the country. For which the people of country regulatory obeylising & follow it, as well as express their opinion. But if suppose any mistake or wrongful act schemes passed by the government or some decision has been taken out of the interest of the citizen. Then the people should have the right to ameliorate because our country is a democracy where the people have the right to elect head. That's why in the form of protest our constitution has provided this right as a fundamental right. However, it doesn't matter it is not in absolute nature.
In the case of Damayanti v. Union of India, the validity of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962 was challenged as it infringed Article 19(1) (c). The claimant was a member of the federation. The Act changed the configuration of the association and introduced new members. The result of this modification was that the members who independently formed the association were now compelled to act in the association with other members in whose admission they had no say. The Supreme Court held-The Act violated the rights of the original members of the society to form an association guaranteed under Article 19(1) (c). "The right to form an association", the Court states, "necessarily implies that the person forming the association has also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association. Any law by which members are introduced in the voluntary association without any option being given to the members to keep them out, or any law which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it, will be a law violating the right to form an association". The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act does not merely regulate the administration of the affairs of the original society, what it does is alter the composition of the society itself. The result of this change in the composition is that the members who voluntarily formed the association are now compelled to act in the association with other members who have been imposed as members by the Act and in whose admission to membership they had no say. Such alteration in the composition of the association itself clearly interferes with the right to continue to function as members of the association which was voluntarily formed by the founders. The Act, therefore, violates the right of the original members of the society to form an association guaranteed under Article 19(1) (c).
In case of laws - Amit Sahni Vs commissioner of police[3], the fact of the case was- In December 2019, the government of country passed the act which was citizenship amendment act, 2019 which turns away of violence as well as protest in a different realm of country. Then after an advocate, Amit Sahni filed an appeal in the supreme court in which they contended that people have fundamental right to assemble peaceably protest without arms within which the Supreme Court authored the decision of 3 benches of judges and determined a statement that “right to peaceful protest was absolute but protester doesn’t have any right to occupy any public place for an indefinite period of time. If the protestor has done the same the general public servant has the right to clear the realm.
In other case laws Ramlila maidan incident Vs home secretary during this case, the Supreme Court had clearly stated that every citizen has a fundamental right to assemble and peaceful protest which cannot be abolished by an administrative executive or legislative action.
It means- The article 19(1) of the Indian constitution gives right to-
Raise voice demand and to do peaceful protest along with this article 51(a) to impose fundamental duties over all citizens to safeguard public property it means only peaceful & lawful protest in India is valid.
Recently, if we see the farmer protest in India after the independence of government has passed a farm bill for giving freedom to farmers. According to this bill-
• The government said the farmer of our country will be able to an agreement with the company's organization traders MNC etc.
• They have also the right to sell their crop in any marketplace according to his demand price.
• The government passed this legislation because earlier farmers used to a retailer for sale a product and retailers benefited as they can earn.
In today’s era the involvement of sensible curtailment on the conduct of a protest plays major part of avert. So the liability of a government to enforce strict laws against this effective and also not to ensure that it is used excessively in the hands of the people. Thus, the government must stadiness each side and conveys silently or legal stability to society. They should also welcome reasonable demands and constructive criticism of individuals , and in any case, the proper to non-submission shouldn't be suppressed, as protests are the way in which society because the guardian of state activities can point to the work of state or policies they are doing not like or can demand those rules necessary for them.
On the opposite hand, it's also the responsibility of the responsible citizen of the country to use every right where necessary and to not oppose government actions and policies every time unconditionally, which unconditionally affects the functioning of the entire country and pre dominates instability in society.
Comments